Would you abort a child with Down Syndrome?

mydearwatson

I'm very much open to correction on this, but I've heard that if scans show up the possibility of Down Syndrome in an unborn child, the parent has the option to abort.

Is this true?

And would you do it? As far as I know, the scan shows up your chances of having a DS child in terms of percentages. Would you continue with the pregnancy if there was a 1% chance? 5%? 50%? 99%?

Assume that the legalities and the stage of pregnancy is irrelevant (i.e. assume that you could legally and easily abort up to birth.)

Personally ... I couldn't ever imagine myself making the decision to abort but I could absolutely understand and respect the decisions of others.

Moon Indigo

If I am totally honest me and my partner have discussed this. At first I said I probably would go ahead with the birth and my partner said she wouldn't. This is not because of any lack of love for the child just something we have discussed. I think that could all change if we saw the child on screen.

It terrible to say but I truly think it depends on how severe the DS is/was and of course in reality if we seen the baby on screen maybe it would change our perspectives.
The thing is that we would not be around all the time in the childs future to protect it. I know things have improved considerably in recent times with regard to peoples attitudes etc. At the end of the day we have a high enough chance of out living the child and then what? I hate the though of he/she being in a home of looked after by someone who dosen't care. The quality of life in the future is what worries us.
I hope we never have to make the choice.

alex73

Yes Downs Children are sub humans.... Just kill them, they end up costing the state millions.. Who would be bothered raising them anyway.

Thats the great thing about abortion, it allows humanity to weed out the non desirables, esp down syndrome babies.

alex73

See my thread on this topic..http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056324984

By the way I have highest respect for anyone with the condition. They are amazing, loving and careing.

Moon Indigo

Bit strong there Alex73. I hope you didn't read my post and think I was saying that because that was not the point. I personally have nothing against DS or those who are DS or any other disability. The world takes and needs all types to make it go around.

prinz

No. I wouldn't... and no I don't respect the decision of those who would. One of those issues that crops up occassionally that really makes me sick.

Put it this way. We are hugely proud of our link to the Special Olympics and the team in Ireland, and the fantastic work that the athletes, trainers, carers, chaperones, families etc do.

What right would any of us have to hold it in such esteem if you put certain conditions, such as Down's, on a list of grounds reasonable for abortion. What message does it send to adults with Down's Syndrome amongst others? That others like them are unworthy of life or protection?

What happens, as has happened in other jurisdictions, when advising (and indeed putting pressure on parents to abort) aborting unborn with certain conditions becomes then norm? Does society's attitude to those living with Down's for example improve? Would our society be a better place to be for any of us when the 'disabled' start to disappear? When the love of parents and when the skill and care of teams of surgeons separating conjoined twins for example becomes less and less frequent... because they've been aborted instead?

CerebralCortex

alex73 wrote: »

Yes Downs Children are sub humans.... Just kill them, they end up costing the state millions.. Who would be bothered raising them anyway.

Thats the great thing about abortion, it allows humanity to weed out the non desirables, esp down syndrome babies.

:rolleyes:

CerebralCortex

prinz wrote: »

What right would any of us have to hold it in such esteem if you put certain conditions, such as Down's, on a list of grounds reasonable for abortion. What message does it send to adults with Down's Syndrome amongst others?

That Down's is a cruel imposition on a sentient being and those that have to look after them? Nature is cruel?

prinz

CerebralCortex wrote: »

That Down's is a cruel imposition on a sentient being and those that have to look after them? Nature is cruel?

..and who or what decides what exactly constitutes a 'cruel imposition'?

How many family members/friends/carers of people with Down's feel it a cruel imposition? Who gives you the right to make people with Down's feel like a burden on their loved ones?

The nature is cruel argument has been around a long time. It's no more relevant or moral today than it was decades or centuries or millenia ago when it was used as an excuse to wipe out anybody considered inferior.

CathyMoran

Had the nuchal scan (an ultrasound and blood test) on both of ours and they were OK - we did agree ahead that we would keep our child no matter what though. I would not even get an amneocentisis test.

Rabidlamb

It's a tough one & I'm don't think anyone knows for sure until there in that situation.
I reckon a lot of parents must be having abortions cause there seems to be far fewer DS kids around now than say 20 years ago.

CerebralCortex

CathyMoran wrote: »

I would not even get an amneocentisis test.

Why not?

scholar007

alex73 wrote: »

Yes Downs Children are sub humans.... Just kill them, they end up costing the state millions.. Who would be bothered raising them anyway.

Thats the great thing about abortion, it allows humanity to weed out the non desirables, esp down syndrome babies.

OMG! :eek: - You don't recall if you wore a grey uniform in a previous life by any chance?

CathyMoran

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Why not?

There is a risk of miscarriage and I know how painful that is.

spicykat

Thats weird but my midwife told me that they cant tell you whether you have a DS baby or not from early scans....and on late ones it will be too late to abort the baby... I know you can do some tests-they take the sample of blood or smth at i think 14 weeks, but thats about it, and plus they will not tell you with 100% accuracy

Tidyweb

Think I might start a thread "Would you abort a baby if you found out they would grow up and start a thread like this"

Blisterman

prinz wrote: »

No. I wouldn't... and no I don't respect the decision of those who would. One of those issues that crops up occassionally that really makes me sick.

Put it this way. We are hugely proud of our link to the Special Olympics and the team in Ireland, and the fantastic work that the athletes, trainers, carers, chaperones, families etc do.

What right would any of us have to hold it in such esteem if you put certain conditions, such as Down's, on a list of grounds reasonable for abortion. What message does it send to adults with Down's Syndrome amongst others? That others like them are unworthy of life or protection?

What happens, as has happened in other jurisdictions, when advising (and indeed putting pressure on parents to abort) aborting unborn with certain conditions becomes then norm? Does society's attitude to those living with Down's for example improve? Would our society be a better place to be for any of us when the 'disabled' start to disappear? When the love of parents and when the skill and care of teams of surgeons separating conjoined twins for example becomes less and less frequent... because they've been aborted instead?

That's a bit harsh I think. Obviously if any parent had the choice of having a child with or without Down Syndrome, the vast majority would choose without. That's not an insult to anyone with Down syndrome or the great work that people do in the area, just an aknowledgment that it's very difficult, both for the child with down syndrome and the parents.

I think a lot of it comes down to your views on abortion. Personally, I don't consider an early fetus to be a human. They lack consciousness, so I'd be inclined to "try again" so to say, but that's just me.

prinz

Blisterman wrote: »

That's a bit harsh I think. Obviously if any parent had the choice of having a child with or without Down Syndrome, the vast majority would choose without. That's not an insult to anyone with Down syndrome or the great work that people do in the area, just an aknowledgment that it's very difficult, both for the child with down syndrome and the parents..

Hypothetically wanting a child without is a far cry from deliberating destroying those with. Personally I would very much see it as an insult to those living with DS if our state for example decided that an unborn child with DS was less worthy of life than an unborn child without it. The real crime comes when the option of a termination becomes the preferred and advised option.

While I respect your position regarding early abortions, in the area of discussing disabled or unborn with Down's syndrome, late term abortion features more often when the presense of conditions can more easily be ascertained. In the UK for example abortions can be carried out up to full term in the case of serious disabilities...although exactly what this entails is up in the air it seems.

CerebralCortex

prinz wrote: »

Hypothetically wanting a child without is a far cry from deliberating destroying those with. Personally I would very much see it as an insult to those living with DS if our state for example decided that an unborn child with DS was less worthy of life than an unborn child without it. The real crime comes when the option of a termination becomes the preferred and advised option.

While I respect your position regarding early abortions, in the area of discussing disabled or unborn with Down's syndrome, late term abortion features more often when the presense of conditions can more easily be ascertained. In the UK for example abortions can be carried out up to full term in the case of serious disabilities...although exactly what this entails is up in the air it seems.

What gives you the right/knowledge to deem it a crime?

prinz

CerebralCortex wrote: »

What gives you the right/knowledge to deem it a crime?

A sense of morality which tells me that people should not be pushed into aborting their unborn child because it is disabled. That any society should deem certain members unworthy/less worthy of life is a crime in my book. Unborn or not is irrelevant. I don't see the difference between shipping disabled kids off to be 'put down' and adopting a list of ailments for which the preferred solution is abortion.

CerebralCortex

prinz wrote: »

A sense of morality which tells me that people should not be pushed into aborting their unborn child because it is disabled. That any society should deem certain members unworthy/less worthy of life is a crime in my book. Unborn or not is irrelevant.

Who's being pushed?

prinz wrote: »

I don't see the difference between shipping disabled kids off to be 'put down' and adopting a list of ailments for which the preferred solution is abortion.

That's painfully obvious.

BostonB

The question really is, is abortion ever appropriate. If you say no, then do you think its feasible to provide limitless resources to care for the outcome of that stance. Considering it will the parents, and siblings, their entire life, and resources beyond that.

Blisterman

prinz wrote: »

Hypothetically wanting a child without is a far cry from deliberating destroying those with. Personally I would very much see it as an insult to those living with DS if our state for example decided that an unborn child with DS was less worthy of life than an unborn child without it. The real crime comes when the option of a termination becomes the preferred and advised option.

While I respect your position regarding early abortions, in the area of discussing disabled or unborn with Down's syndrome, late term abortion features more often when the presense of conditions can more easily be ascertained. In the UK for example abortions can be carried out up to full term in the case of serious disabilities...although exactly what this entails is up in the air it seems.

Obviously I belive it's the parent's choice and there's alone, and it would be wrong for the government or anyone else to push people into doing so.

Late term abortions are a much trickier area, but with testing becoming more accurate at an early stage, hopefully this can be avoided.

prinz

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Who's being pushed?

A 2000 study found that nearly 25% of physicians who explain prenatal test results put a negative spin on a finding of Down syndrome, or actively encourage the parents to terminate the pregnancy. Furthermore, a 2005 survey of mothers with Down syndrome children uncovered a similar bias within the healthcare community when such a child was born.

http://www.disaboom.com/parenting-and-family-general/abortion-rate-affected-by-down-syndrome-test

But Krista Flint, director of the Canadian Down Syndrome Society, also talked with the Toronto paper and said families feel doctors encourage abortions by stressing the drawbacks to a baby with special needs.

"It’s very dark," she said. "They hear a lot about the medical conditions that are sometimes associated with Down syndrome."

"We know overwhelmingly the message families get is ‘Don’t have this baby, it will ruin your life,’ and I don’t think people would look at Sarah Palin and see a ruined life," Flint said. "Regardless of politics, I think it’s a good example."

http://www.lifenews.com/2008/09/10/int-914/

One of my friends had to flee the practice she had been going to — and I don’t use those words lightly — because they wouldn’t stop pressuring her to end the life of her son who has Down syndrome. Her pregnancy was already harrowing, she was as anxious as any first-time pregnant mother would be and nervous about having a child with special needs. The pressure to abort was way too much, though. She finally found a practice mid-pregnancy that supported her belief that having Down syndrome was not a capital offense. Her son is awesome, by the way

http://mommyish.com/pregnancy-health/my-obgyn-wont-do-abortions-thats-why-i-chose-her-851/

Plus plenty of first hand anecdotal evidence from a pediatric home care nurse working in a country where abortion is encouraged.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

That's painfully obvious.

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to the essential differences between performing a late term abortion, long past the stage of foetal viability, and killing the child outside of the womb? One is deemed ok, one isn't.

BostonB

That a US study, is it really the same here?

BostonB

prinz wrote: »

...
Perhaps you could enlighten me as to the essential differences between performing a late term abortion, long past the stage of foetal viability, and killing the child outside of the womb? One is deemed ok, one isn't.

Is that the same as removing treatment that is sustaining the mechanics of life.

prinz

BostonB wrote: »

That a US study, is it really the same here?

We're lucky enough to live in a country that ascribes a right to life to the unborn, regardless of whether they have Down's Syndrome or not. So with regards to Ireland itself it's a hypothetical argument.

BostonB

Thus in Ireland, you'd have to go full term even with a dying baby in the womb.

prinz

BostonB wrote: »

Is that the same as removing treatment that is sustaining the mechanics of life.

Eh, what?

BostonB wrote: »

Thus in Ireland, you'd have to go full term even with a dying baby in the womb.

Put it this way, they don't go in and finish the dying baby off with a scalpel to speed things up. If your baby has died in the womb no you don't have to go full term. If the mother's life is in danger it becomes a legal grey area.

harr

Hi
As a parent of a child with DS i would respect any couples right to have a abortion if they found out early enough,we often spoke about this before we had kids and we felt that we would have been unable to cope with a child who had special needs.
None of my wife's scans showed anything was wrong with the baby so it came as a big shock when we found out,so glad now that we never found out our little man is the best in the world and is starting pre school next week.
Its not the case that if a scan shows signs of DS your offered a abortion in Ireland,I had a friend who was told that there was a high chance his baby had DS but the little girl was fine.I hope the people who left some of the disgusting comments here are just trolling and looking for a rise out of people if not they are very narrow mined people.

DublinWriter

It isn't an option in Ireland. The majority of hospitals wouldn't offer the prospective mother an elective amneocentisis in the first place.

BostonB

I think people are assuming scan are fool proof. Whereas they are not. I know people in the same situation as harr described.

CathyMoran

DublinWriter wrote: »

It isn't an option in Ireland. The majority of hospitals wouldn't offer the prospective mother an elective amneocentisis in the first place.

I was advised not to have one as my risk after the nuchal scan was very low not because of any other reason.

BostonB

prinz wrote: »

Eh, what?..

Is there a difference between deliberately with holding treatment, leading to ending a life, and ending a life which has the same medical problems.

Mr. Presentable

In resp. of the OP, I hope I wouldn't, but one can't know until the decision is required how one will decide.

And, yes, scans are not foolproof, which opens the door to even worse possibilities.

BostonB

DublinWriter wrote: »

It isn't an option in Ireland. The majority of hospitals wouldn't offer the prospective mother an elective amneocentisis in the first place.

Its a risk in itself. Hence (I think) they would be reluctant unless they had some reason to suspect a problem.

prinz

BostonB wrote: »

Is there a difference between deliberately with holding treatment, leading to ending a life, and ending a life which has the same medical problems.

No... but there is a difference between withholding treatment which may improve a life, and withholding treatment which is at best not a treatment at all but merely prolonging the inevitable.

Tabnabs

A very controversial subject in the socially progressive and seemingly liberal Scandinavian countries where the rate of down syndrome born babies has dropped dramatically in recent years. In Denmark I understand the rate is extremely low and trending towards zero.

CerebralCortex

prinz wrote: »

http://www.disaboom.com/parenting-and-family-general/abortion-rate-affected-by-down-syndrome-test



http://www.lifenews.com/2008/09/10/int-914/



http://mommyish.com/pregnancy-health/my-obgyn-wont-do-abortions-thats-why-i-chose-her-851/

Plus plenty of first hand anecdotal evidence from a pediatric home care nurse working in a country where abortion is encouraged.

No one is being forced to have abortions and your pro-life article suggestions seem to suggest the opposite in fact.

prinz wrote: »

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to the essential differences between performing a late term abortion, long past the stage of foetal viability, and killing the child outside of the womb? One is deemed ok, one isn't.

Maybe there is one maybe there isn't I don't know. I'm a physicalist when it comes to conciousness. When someone is in the late stages of Alzheimer's disease I would consider them dead for example. Is a baby concious does it suffer? I don't know the answer to this so I can't honestly answer you. However an embryo does not a person make, to ban abortion at that stage would be as pointless as banning condoms in my opinion.

seamus

BostonB wrote: »

Its a risk in itself. Hence (I think) they would be reluctant unless they had some reason to suspect a problem.

The risk is overstated about amniocentesis in this country. The risk is commonly quoted as being one in 200, but this figure is from the seventies. With modern techniques, the risk is about one-tenth of that. But yes, there is a risk.

Perhaps it's because of our frequent raging debates about the right to life of the unborn that we're very reluctant in this country to interfere with the gestational process, for better or worse.

The Down's debate is a tough one. No parent of a Down's child will tell you that it's easy, but equally none will tell you that they regret having the child.

As a supporter of the right to choose, I have no issue with someone choosing to abort on the basis of Down's. There is sound logic behind it; at the end of the day all non-essential abortions are carried out in order to avoid the parent(s) having the additional stress in their lives. Aborting because of Down's is being a little more selective, but the reasoning is the same - they don't want the additional stress in their lives. Selfish? Of course it is. All non-essential abortion is.

My primary concern would be that Down's would be seen as a bad word. We've been through that already. In good old Catholic Ireland, children with disabilities like Down's were locked in back rooms out of the sight of the rest of the town and treated like animals. We've finally gotten to a place where people with Down's are treated with dignity and humanity. I wouldn't like the world to become a place where people thought, "Ugh, Down's, abort it". Ideally the decision would be taken rationally and with full consideration of the reality of Down's.

prinz

CerebralCortex wrote: »

No one is being forced to have abortions... .

Encouraged, pressured etc..

CerebralCortex wrote: »

When someone is in the late stages of Alzheimer's disease I would consider them dead for example.

So in your world I could go on a killing spree of the late stage patients in my local Alzheimer's carehome and couldn't face any actual sanction because they'd be already dead? Nice.

seamus wrote: »

We've finally gotten to a place where people with Down's are treated with dignity and humanity..

We have, and it's fantastic.

seamus wrote: »

I wouldn't like the world to become a place where people thought, "Ugh, Down's, abort it"..

Unfortunately that is exactly the place the world is becoming...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/us/09down.html

seamus

prinz wrote: »

Unfortunately that is exactly the place the world is becoming...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/us/09down.html

That's a nice article actually, but it does point out that this is not a legislative issue, it's a social one.
The attitudes of the doctors, for example; "I'm sorry, but...", or "I have some bad news", as well as the attitudes of the community are far more important than the availability of genetic testing or abortions.

There was a post recently on After Hours where an older woman expressed her sympathies to the local doctor in the waiting room of his surgery, because he had a child born with Down's. When the doctor remarked that it's not like his child is dead, she responded, "Well, as good as".

Unfortunately this attitude is still prevalent in Ireland, especially among older generations, and unless the attitude itself is turned on its head, then it's going to become a bigger problem as medical science marches on.

There will always be a negative view of Down's to some degree because of some procreational imperatives. Everyone has kids for their own reasons, but behind it is a primal drive to carry on your bloodline. A Down's child will not carry on your bloodline and will put proportionally more pressure on resources which are shared with your "normal" children. That's a cold way of looking at it, but it's what the base primal mind thinks. It's why the parents of Down's children need all the state support that we can offer, both for their and the childrens' sakes.

prinz

seamus wrote: »

The attitudes of the doctors, for example; "I'm sorry, but...", or "I have some bad news", as well as the attitudes of the community are far more important than the availability of genetic testing or abortions..

However those attitudes in society is going to lead to more abortions, which leads to less people born with Down's and in turn less and less Down's people will result in even harsher attitudes towards those who choose not to abort. So it's a downward spiral.

seamus wrote: »

When the doctor remarked that it's not like his child is dead, she responded, "Well, as good as". ..

There has been similar opinions expressed on this thread.

seamus wrote: »

It's why the parents of Down's children need all the state support that we can offer, both for their and the childrens' sakes.

True, but once again the perceived drain on resources is seen by some as a reason to abort, and so those who choose not to abort will be resented as taking unnecessary state support, which in turn will lead to resentment against those living with Down's, which will lead to more aborting, which will lead to more of the 'ugh Down's' attitudes.

gbee

My view is it would be best for the child, I believe in multiple lives, not exactly reincarnation but other lives for sure.

To stack the odds in favour of not having a child like this, have children early in life.

the_syco

prinz wrote: »

decided that an unborn child with DS was less worthy of life than an unborn child without it

Maybe, though it'd be less to do with them being worthy of life, and more to do with them being able to enjoy life. Most DS children that I've seen are happy. Really happy. Have not seen a DS adult, so unsure how they cope in adulthood, but my only gripe about DS is if they'd be looked after/able to look after themselves when I go onto the next life.

Tabnabs wrote: »

A very controversial subject in the socially progressive and seemingly liberal Scandinavian countries where the rate of down syndrome born babies has dropped dramatically in recent years. In Denmark I understand the rate is extremely low and trending towards zero.

I don't know the cause of DS, but hopefully the decrease is natural, as opposed to forced decrease.

From http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/us/09down.html

A dwindling Down syndrome population, which now stands at about 350,000, could mean less institutional support and reduced funds for medical research. It could also mean a lonelier world for those who remain.

This seems a fairly selfish reason: allow DS kids to be born to make life for current DS people less lonely.

BostonB

seamus wrote: »

....
The Down's debate is a tough one. No parent of a Down's child will tell you that it's easy, but equally none will tell you that they regret having the child.

As a supporter of the right to choose, I have no issue with someone choosing to abort on the basis of Down's. There is sound logic behind it; at the end of the day all non-essential abortions are carried out in order to avoid the parent(s) having the additional stress in their lives. Aborting because of Down's is being a little more selective, but the reasoning is the same - they don't want the additional stress in their lives. Selfish? Of course it is. All non-essential abortion is.....

Thats overly simplistic. If you ask the question if you'd have the choice what to choose, vs do you regret is a very different question. A sweeping generalisation that all parents think the same cannot possible be true.

BostonB

prinz wrote: »

....but once again the perceived drain on resources is seen by some as a reason to abort,...

That considerably understating the impact especially where a child has poor communication and remains at a pre school level etc. It has a very real impact on everyone.

prinz

the_syco wrote: »

I don't know the cause of DS, but hopefully the decrease is natural, as opposed to forced decrease..

No it isn't. The number of Down's Syndrome pregnancies is growing year on year. The number of those pregnancies being taken to birth is falling. More and more abortions are occurring.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8327228.stm

BostonB wrote: »

That considerably understating the impact especially where a child has poor communication and remains at a pre school level etc. It has a very real impact on everyone.

The same could be said for any number of conditions, illnesses, disabilities, lifestyle choices...

CerebralCortex

prinz wrote: »

However those attitudes in society is going to lead to more abortions, which leads to less people born with Down's and in turn less and less Down's people will result in even harsher attitudes towards those who choose not to abort. So it's a downward spiral.



There has been similar opinions expressed on this thread.



True, but once again the perceived drain on resources is seen by some as a reason to abort, and so those who choose not to abort will be resented as taking unnecessary state support, which in turn will lead to resentment against those living with Down's, which will lead to more aborting, which will lead to more of the 'ugh Down's' attitudes.

Do you actually know what you're saying? We should have more Down's syndrome kids so that Down's syndrome sufferers will have a bigger club?
Absolute nonsense.

strobe

prinz wrote: »

However those attitudes in society is going to lead to more abortions, which leads to less people born with Down's and in turn less and less Down's people will result in even harsher attitudes towards those who choose not to abort. So it's a downward spiral.

Is that not a bit presumptuous Prinz? The predominant attitude I've heard from the majority of people towards the parents of those with Down's has been one of admiration rather than anything for the sacrifice they make and the work they put in to make their child's life as good as possible. That with the fact that in most cases the parents didn't have any option of abortion or foreknowledge of the condition. I find it hard to credit that you seem to be taking it for granted that less Down's children (or any children with disabilities) being born would lead these people into a shift from sympathy and admiration to resentment and ridicule.

BostonB

prinz wrote: »

...The same could be said for any number of conditions, illnesses, disabilities, lifestyle choices...

Well you can't have it both ways, either its a "perceived drain" (horrible terminology) or it has real impact as do other conditions. I'm completely baffled how you'er so dismissive of it.